Talk:Wong Sau Ying

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wong Sau Ying/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 01:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Grnrchst, and thanks for the article. I'm excited to review your nomination. I should have the first parts of the review ready within the next 24 hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Grnrchst, my first comments are below, under the tracker, which I'll update later in the review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers: Think I've addressed everything. Let me know if there's anything else I should do. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Grnrchst, and thanks for your prompt attention to those issues. I'll have the next round for you within the next 24 hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Addressed recent comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers: Checking in. Let me know if there's anything more I need to do. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Grnrchst. This is ready to be on hold. One additional issue is detailed below. Will ping if more come up and will update the tracker soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers: Sorry for the ping, any updates? --Grnrchst (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Grnrchst. Not right now, but I'll have something for you within the next 24. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• A clear pass. Thank you, Grnrchst, for writing it and responding promptly during the review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All issues resolved below.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Minor lead/body issues resolved below.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   In addition to sources checked during the course of the review, I spot checked a random selection of citations (1, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 23, 28, 34, 35). No major issues, and minor issues were fixed below.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig and spot checks came up clean.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   One minor issue resolved below.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All issues resolved below.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great article. All issues resolved below.

Overall comments

1. I made some minor copy edits in this series of revisions. Please review and let me know if they're acceptable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

   Looks good! Thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

2. Wong's husband should probably be mentioned somewhere, since its relevant to her actions in a couple places and since mentions of marriages are part of broad coverage in biographies. His name is given differently by Harper and Yong, which we can note in the text. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

   @Firefangledfeathers: Added some details about her husband. I initially hadn't included him as I thought the detail to be trivial, but I think it was the name difference that tripped me up there. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

3. We should consistently use either "Anarchist Federation of Malaya" or "Anarchist Federation of Malay", without the final "a". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

4. Let me know if there are any issues with these copy and style edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   All looks good, thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

1. In the infobox, the suggestion that 2 total people were injured is contradicted by both Yong sources—Yong 1991 mentions two unnamed targets and Yong 1997 names Richards and Blythe—and Zakuan mentions three injured, not including Wong. Harper makes no comment on Blythe being injured but does name him as a "target" (p. 617), making the Target(s) parameter also iffy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

   I've removed both parameters for now, due to the source disagreement. Any suggestions for rectifying this or should I just leave it out of the infobox? --Grnrchst (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

   How about "2–4" for injured, with a footnote laying out what each source says? I think the target field can stay out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

2. "executed by the Chinese authorities": this should be matched more closely with how it's presented in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

   Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

3. Nothing wrong with "Born in Imperial China, in 1919, she moved ...", but a change might make it easier to parse: "Born in Imperial China, she moved in 1919 ..."

   Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

4. Any reason to call her "Wong Sang" in the image alt text? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   Wong Sang is the name under which this photograph was published, as her true name wasn't yet known at that point; so that's why the file name is that way, and I guess it made its way into alt text by mistake. I've changed the alt text to Wong Sau Ying for consistency. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Early life and activism

1. "where at the time": the reader will likely assume everything written is true as of the time Wong was active. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
   • Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2. "stand out against" has a connotation of active opposition/hostility. Maybe "stand out among" is meant here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
   • Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
3. "respectable women": is this scare-quoting, or quoting a source? If it's a source, it should be attributed in the text. If you'd rather not use the quote at all, I'm confident there's a decent alternative that uses encyclopedic language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
   • I was quoting the source, which says: "She was a striking presence. For one thing, she was not wearing a hat, as any respectable woman would do. But more than this, her hair was trimmed very short, in the modern style. There were few women of any kind to be seen in Kuala Lumpur." Can you suggest an alternative in encyclopedic language? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

     I'd suggest either appending an "according to historian Tim Harper" (who probably deserves that redlink turning blue), just ending at "stand out", or truncating to "among women". I wonder if Harper is referring here to her standing out just in Kuala Lumpur, where he mentions European women wearing hats and veils. I'm reading snippets in isolation, so I could definitely be wrong. Do any other sources mention hat vs. no hat in a broader context? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

     Decided to truncate it as the best option, cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

4. "She was soon brought into the Malayan anarchist movement, through her lover Mak Peng-cho.": as far as I can tell, this is not supported by Harper 2021, pp. 512–513, or Yong 1997, p. 32. Maybe the specific claim that Mak Peng-cho brought her into the movement is present in another source? Otherwise, it would be fine to mention Wong joining the movement and Mak being prominent in it, citing mainly Yong 1997. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

   Rewritten per source. I think I may have misread this slightly when going over it the first time. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Assassination attempts

1. "Having failed to accomplish her intended task,": you could drop this whole introductory segment and just start with "She". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
   • Trimmed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2. "the bobbed-hair woman": this is the first mention of the bob in the body. Should probably be linked here, and not in §Legacy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
   • Linked. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
     • You added the earlier link but didn't remove the §Legacy one. No worries if you'd rather link both. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
3. "dressed in white": source mentions a white shirt and black skirt. Maybe this can just be dropped? There are other parts where her appearance is relevant, but this doesn't seem to be one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

   Dropped. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

4. "throughout the peninsular": maybe "peninsula"? Not sure if this is an ENGVAR difference. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   Corrected. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

5. "lost one of his hands": source says he "lost the use of one hand". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   Adjusted. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Trial and imprisonment

1. "She was known to cause trouble in prison" → "She caused trouble in prison"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

   Trimmed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

2. "which was said to have resembled a court martial" is a bit MOS:WEASELly, and "which" has an unclear antecedent. Could state this as a fact or attribute to Harper. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   Attributed and started new sentence. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

3. "with nine other women": source says "around nine", and it appears to include Wong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   Good catch. Corrected. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

1. "(KMT)": this acronym can probably be dropped, since it's never used. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

   Dropped. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

2. "French police claimed to have discovered Wong's photograph in the possession of some exiled Vietnamese anarchists in Canton." This is more attributed than the source, which states as a fact that the photograph was circulating and that French police obtained a copy. Does another source cast some doubt? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   Removed "claimed to have". --Grnrchst (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Optional, non-GA-criteria feedback

Nothing in this section is required for a GA pass. Just some suggestions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Check for any contractions, which should be removed per MOS:'. I fixed a couple. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
   • Think you got all of these. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Check for MOS:LQ issues. At least one sentence needed its full stop placed after the quotation marks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
   • Think you got all of these. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Check for MOS:JOBTITLE issues. For example, "the British High Commissioner of Malaya" should be "the British high commissioner of Malaya". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
   • Edited. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
4. I'd recommend dropping "Biography" as a heading, since it has no content outside of its subheadings and since the content is so obviously biographical, and bumping the level up on all its subheadings. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

5. Singapore probably doesn't need a link in the bibliography. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

   Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Premeditated Chaos talk 05:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Wong Sau Ying wearing her hair in a bob cut

• ... that after Wong Sau Ying (pictured) attempted to assassinate a British colonial official, the police and press began to associate the bob cut with anarchism?

• Source: Harper, Tim (2021). Underground Asia: Global Revolutionaries and the Assault on Empire. Harvard University Press. pp. 509–510. ISBN 978-0-674-72461-7.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jean-Pierre Lévy (resistance leader)

Improved to Good Article status by Grnrchst (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 37 past nominations.

Grnrchst (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC).

• Interesting and clears Earwig, length, QPQ, and formatting, but can you provide a quotation directly in the reference to verify the claim? Orchastrattor (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Orchastrattor: It's tricky, because this hook is summing up two full pages of information. It's not something I can easily quote. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Grnrchst: the bit about the bob cut would be the only thing that needs verification, is the claim paraphrased directly from the author or does the source simply give some individual examples? Orchastrattor (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Orchastrattor: Here's a couple excerpts from the text. It goes further into this in preceding and subsequent paragraphs:

  The colonial public was chilled by her [Wong Sau Ying's] exacting premeditation. The ‘bobbed-hair woman’ had arrived in Kuala Lumpur only that morning. Some reports said that she came from Canton; others that she was from Penang, and fluent in Malay. They were, above all, obsessed by the way she looked. [...]
  The year 1925 was when the ‘Modern Girl’ became a global phenomenon, and in this the women of Asia took the lead. [...] There were stories of ‘bobbed-hair riots’ as far away as Mexico City, of rival ‘anti-bobbed-hair leagues’ and ‘bobbed-hair defence leagues’. [...]
  The ‘Modern Girl’ was increasingly linked to a dangerous, disordered modernity; to nihilism and to anarchism. As one expatriate journal put it: ‘The now notorious “bobbed-haired” lady might just as well have turned up in Venezuela or Tibet for all the relation that her “mission” had to events in Malaya... Politics virtually do not exist in this country.’ The Straits Times brayed for a system of ‘identity tickets’ to indicate who was a loyal subject of His Majesty King George V and who was not. There were suddenly other sightings of ‘strange’ young women in Kuala Lumpur. [...]
  At the root of the case was her ‘new style’.

  --Grnrchst (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Grnrchst: passes V and neutrality then, approved! Orchastrattor (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)